Re: [ANN][DRK] Darkcoin | First Anonymous Coin | Inventor of X11, DGW and Darksend | InstantX
I'm involved in a discussion over on another thread where a Monero guy is possiting that Darkcoin is "Architecturally Flawed" due to the masternode architecture.
I've already posted quite a long response and he has come back with a whole load of cryptographic waffle which I haven't got time right now to respond to.
Could someone who knows what they're talking about have a look at this......
I've already posted quite a long response and he has come back with a whole load of cryptographic waffle which I haven't got time right now to respond to.
Could someone who knows what they're talking about have a look at this......
1. We don't even need an attacker with the NSA's scope. Law enforcement like the FBI can easily get the legal right to wiretap masternodes. Many of these masternodes run on virtualised machines, which means the hosting provider can snoop the OS status and memory. Virtually all of them could be under the purview of LEA, and thus long-term monitoring would be invisible.
2. Over and above that, there's massive incentive for masternode operators to make extra money by selling access to their logs. Not every operator is a rational actor, not every operator is a libertarian.
3. As long as operators earn based on what they process there will be an incentive for masternode operators to attack each other. This is a classic case of Prisoner's Dilemma.
The most concerning is 3, as there really is little that can be done to fix that. You can't evenly split rewards, as then there's no longer an incentive for a masternode to be honest (not that there's much incentive for that right now). When this has been mentioned before the knee-jerk reaction is "they'll never do that!" However, one need only take a look at how Bitcoin mining pools operate to see that this is a very real problem. Two references that make for good reading are: Ittay Eyal's "The Miner's Dilemma", and the paper "When Bitcoin Mining Pools Run Dry" by Aron Laszka et. al. This is, of course, quite a well-known issue amongst those in the know: 1, 2, 3
2. Over and above that, there's massive incentive for masternode operators to make extra money by selling access to their logs. Not every operator is a rational actor, not every operator is a libertarian.
3. As long as operators earn based on what they process there will be an incentive for masternode operators to attack each other. This is a classic case of Prisoner's Dilemma.
The most concerning is 3, as there really is little that can be done to fix that. You can't evenly split rewards, as then there's no longer an incentive for a masternode to be honest (not that there's much incentive for that right now). When this has been mentioned before the knee-jerk reaction is "they'll never do that!" However, one need only take a look at how Bitcoin mining pools operate to see that this is a very real problem. Two references that make for good reading are: Ittay Eyal's "The Miner's Dilemma", and the paper "When Bitcoin Mining Pools Run Dry" by Aron Laszka et. al. This is, of course, quite a well-known issue amongst those in the know: 1, 2, 3
most of the issues fluffy brings up are known and in fact already have a solution waiting to be implemented.
the new masternode blinding thing evan is working on along with ip obfuscation takes care of most of the issues he drones on about.
fluffypony can ramble on until he is blue in the face but the market has spoken and the debate is all but settled, instantX will be the final nail in the coffin.
"In fact?" Really? It's been more than 2 years since your post. You don't get to claim as factual vaporware that is years overdue.
Where is the Masternode blinding and IP obfuscation that Evan was supposedly working on for the last 28 months?
Since Evan's supposed "solution" is still (in March 2017) "waiting to be implemented" we must conclude most of the issues fluffy brought up are still outstanding and unresolved.
Not sure what "the market" has to do with security issues. Does a price spike somehow magically fix Dash's security issues even without Masternode blinding and IP obfuscation?
Or does a price spike compound Dash's security issues because of the greater incentive for attackers to exploit those issues?
Monero is losing the battle icebreaker, take it and let the price speaks for itself. I've just sent Dash transaction to an exchange and was pretty quick. You'd be left behind Spoetnik already jumped in and supported DASH. Forget about glory or whatever you may call it, its winning that matters lol
"The price speaks for itself" but it has nothing to do with security issues. "The price" does not somehow magically fix the Dash security issues resuling from the 2+ year long delay of Masternode blinding and IP obfuscation.